Ball Boy Interference: Judging Intent of Non-Team Persons

A KC ball boy was guilty of intentional interference Friday night during the Blue Jays-Royals game, getting in the way of Toronto right fielder Rajai Davis as Davis attempted to field a foul fly ball in the 7th inning. 1B Umpire Jerry Meals ruled the ball foul, indicating no out would be awarded as a result of the intentional interference. Replays indicate Davis' glove indeed touched the ball before it fell to the ground.
Video: Kansas City ball boy unintentionally commits Intentional Interference against visiting team's Davis

Video: Davis is interfered with.

Rule 3.15 addresses the case of interference with play by persons authorized to be on the playing field other than members of the team at bat, including base coaches: "In case of unintentional interference with play ... the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference."

Rule 3.15 Comment takes it a step further, stating: "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person's action." The Comment then provides examples:

- Unintentional Interference: A bat boy/attendant/policeman/etc. tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but is still touched by the ball. Penalty: ball is alive and in play.
- Intentional Interference: The bat boy, etc. kicks, picks up the ball or pushes it, regardless of his thought process (e.g., even if he "innocently" thought the ball was dead). Penalty: Dead ball; umpire discretion.

2011's Case Play: Cop on Field provides a hypothetical scenario in which Unintentional Interference would be a proper ruling. Because the Royals ball boy initiated contacted with the ball and moreover clearly did not attempt to avoid being touched by it, this constitutes Intentional Interference, subject to the remedies described above.

Rule 3.16 (Spectator Interference) specifies this similar remedy of dead ball/penalties to nullify the act, indicating for all intents and purposes, 3.15 Intent INT is akin to fan INT with regard to enforcement.

Returning to Kansas City and Meals' ruling of "foul ball," as demonstrated above, Rule 3.15 authorizes an umpire to employ discretion in imposing penalties to nullify the act of interference. This is not a rule interpretation call, but one of judgment, as HP Umpire and crew chief Tim McClelland explained to Blue Jays manager John Gibbons; QOC for this particular judgment call, however, is up for debate.